Two interesting and differing views on the "dilemma" facing the Progressive/Liberal Christians

[54anickel]

I'm a big fan of Diana Butler Bass and I'd have to grudgingly agree that's it's time to move beyond an either-or, but I tend to agree more with the second article. Seeking common ground at the expense of the oppressed is unacceptable and "un-Christ-like".


http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/1367/post-modern_progressives%2C_or_liberalism_ain%E2%80%99t_what_it_used_to_be/

Post-Modern Progressives, or Liberalism Ain’t What It Used To Be
By Diana Butler Bass
April 20, 2009

snip>

Post-liberalism,” a post-modern theology, has transformed into a new sort of post-modern progressive Christianity. It moves beyond (as indicated by the word, “post”) and is subsequent to the traditional categories of liberal-and-conservative. Instead, it takes a non-dualistic, discrete, narrative, and situational approach to religion—very different from the former arguments between the Truth claims of older theological structures.

Because of its essential modesty in regard to truth (opting instead for speaking of “truthfulness” rather than Truth), it finds itself as “post-partisan” and doesn’t take sides in the old arguments. As a result, it tends toward theological pragmatism: How does one enact justice in a fallen world? With whom can the faithful make alliances for the sake of shalom in the world? It constructs the world more in terms of a journey of justice rather than a destination of truth. Hence, post-modern progressives are post-partisan, neo-pragmatic pilgrims.

And they do not fit into the categories of “purist” or “accommodator.” Like the “purists,” they are idealistic—they truly believe in God’s reign, in justice, and work (often prophetically) so that the world might be better. But, like the “accommodators,” they are pragmatic, seeing always the “both-and” (or the “and-and-and-and”) rather than the “either-or.”

Thus, part of their idealism is building coalitions and in creating conversation with people from a broad spectrum of opinion. They are idealistic pragmatists—fashioning a progressive faith that matches the longings of what cultural theorist Jonathan Pontell calls “Generation Jones,” (a group who are reshaping a host of political and social institutions)—among whom President Obama is a prime example.

Progressive religion, and the ways it is changing, must be understood within the larger frame of what many philosophers believe is a massive paradigm shift in Western culture—the shift away from modernism toward whatever post-modernism is birthing. The old categories no longer work. We are going to need an entirely different language in order to name progressivism’s new historical iteration.

The tempest-in-a-teapot argument among religious progressives is but one small microburst in the larger storm of cultural change. Those who expected a pure progressive Camelot under President Obama are bound to be disappointed—because he is a post-modern progressive. And that’s a different sort of thing than we’ve known before. History may point the direction, but we’re having to make this up as we go along. Because liberalism just ain’t what it used to be.

more...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/politics/1305/jesus_never_built_a_bridge_with_a_pharisee%3A_on_compromise_with_conservatives

Jesus Never Built a Bridge with a Pharisee: On Compromise with Conservatives
By Candace Chellew-Hodge
April 3, 2009

snip>

Jesus was never interested in finding “bipartisan support” for his efforts at helping the poor and the outcast. If there’s one thing I’ve always admired about conservatives, both religious and secular, is that they have their goals and their principles and they are not interested in “bipartisan support.” Instead, they are interested in getting their agenda implemented in the widest and most effect way possible. Liberals, since the 1960s, have lost that sense of simply knowing that their agenda is right, will benefit the greatest number of people, and must be implemented as quickly as possible—even if the partisans of the other side fight them tooth and nail.

In the book The Legend of Bagger Vance, Bagger, the prescient caddy to all-but-washed-up professional golfer Randolf Junah tells him:


”Love your opponents. When I say love, I don’t mean hand them the match. I mean contend with them to the death, the way a lion battles a bear, without mercy but with infinite respect. Never belittle an opponent in your mind, rather build him up, for on the plane of the Self there can be no distinction between your being and his. Be grateful for your opponents’ excellence. Applaud their brilliance. For the greatness of the hero is measured by that of his adversaries.”

For years, conservatives have been battling liberals without mercy—but with infinite respect. Conservatives understand that they need liberals as their foil—and perhaps most often their scapegoat—in order to get their agenda implemented. Liberals, on the other hand, often don’t have the stomach for such matters, preferring instead to win over their opponents to their side by compromising their beliefs for “common ground.”

Jesus, however, had no mercy when he contended with the principalities and powers. He understood that people’s lives were on the line and there was no time to join hands with the Pharisees or Rome and sing Kumbaya. Instead, Jesus spent his time upending temple tables and calling Pharisees a brood of vipers and hypocrites every chance he got. He contended with them to death.

The same is true today. There are people in our own midst, here in the United States, who starve to death every single day. More and more people slip into poverty as jobs dry up or the high cost of health insurance drives the sick into bankruptcy. There are women who desperately need but cannot afford abortions because of waiting periods or other barriers to the procedure. Many other women are forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term because there are no doctors nearby who perform the procedure. There are gay and lesbian people who continue to be openly discriminated against at the federal, state and local level. They continue to be the victims of hate crimes that go either unpunished or the attacker is given a light sentence. While the “religious left” dithers over strategy, policy, and, “common ground,” people are suffering and dying.

snip>

Our struggle as progressives is not for political privilege or the right to be on CNN instead of a more conservative voice. Our struggle is to end poverty, economic imbalances, and oppression of any kind. To be successful, we must reclaim our agenda and refuse compromise on it. We cannot bargain with the lives of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the tortured, or the outcast. Their lives are not building material for bridges—their suffering is not fodder for political gamesmanship.

Jesus knew it was easy to talk about the poor—easy to want to help them, but hard to put that into practice. The rich young man who wanted to follow Jesus went away sad because Jesus required that he give up his worldly wealth—that he give up whatever political influence he had. The “religious left” is like this rich young man, finally wielding some worldly influence only to find that those in power are at odds with his agenda. The choice is clear: do we move “toward peace, toward justice, or toward fraternal organization of economic life,” or do we compromise and refuse to diminish our “political privileges, (our) unearned income, and (our) power over the working classes”?